Software as a Monthly Rental: My gut reaction to this is that it’s horrible.
But now, Photoshop is also the biggest-name software that you can’t actually buy. You can only rent it, for a month or a year at a time. If you ever stop paying, you keep your files but lose the ability to edit them.
You have to pay $30 a month, or $240 a year, for the privilege of using the latest Photoshop version, called Photoshop CC. Or, if you want to use the full Adobe suite (Illustrator, InDesign, Premiere and so on), you’ll pay $600 a year.
For emphasis, let me point out that you can no longer purchase Photoshop. Renting isn’t an option. It’s the the only way to get it.
I suppose this is where we’re headed in general. In the enterprise software world, software subscription is often the biggest source of company revenues. Companies will discount the initial purchase like crazy, just to get the yearly subscription fees. That’s what keeps sustaining them, year over year.
For now, I just can’t do it. I’m going to abandon all software that moves to a rental model. But, from a vendor perspective, this is a huge benefit to them, so I imagine this is the direction things are going, and I’ll have no choice but to capitulate at some point.
In the end, is this different than “pure” subscription models, like Basecamp and the other countless services we pay $X per month for? Probably not. But it’s somehow…murkier, because we’re installing something on our local machines.
Is it just a cognitive fallacy that I’m getting tripped up by that? If these were pure web-based services, I’d be okay with that…right?